Kerala High Court
A.B.Reetha vs The Deputy Collector (R.R) Exercising ... on 6 August, 2025
Author: C.S.Dias
Bench: C.S.Dias
2025:KER:58596
WP(C) NO. 6326 OF 2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 15TH SRAVANA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 6326 OF 2025
PETITIONERS:
1 A.B.REETHA,
AGED 51 YEARS
W/O. KRISHNAKUMAR, RESIDING AT 'VAKAPPADAM KALAM',
VADAKKANTHARA, NALLEPILLY P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678553
2 AKSHARA,
AGED 36 YEARS
D/O. SADHANANDHAN, RESIDING AT NO. 10/505,
PERUMBALLAM, THATHAMANGALAM P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT,
PIN - 678102
BY ADVS.
SHRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
SHRI.WINSTON K.V
SMT.ANU JACOB
SHRI.BHARATH KRISHNAN G.
SMT.ANJANA A.S.
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE DEPUTY COLLECTOR (R.R) EXERCISING THE POWERS OF
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER,
PALAKKAD, COLLECTORATE, CIVIL STATION, PALAKKAD
DISTRICT, PIN - 678001
2 THE AGRICULTURAL OFFICER FOR THE CHITTUR-
THATHAMANGALAM MUNICIPALITY,
KRISHI BHAVAN, THATHAMANGALAM P.O, PALAKKAD
2025:KER:58596
WP(C) NO. 6326 OF 2025
2
DISTRICT, PIN - 678104
3 THE VILLAGE OFFICER,
THATHAMANGALAM VILLAGE OFFICE, THATHAMANGALAM P.O,
PALAKKAD DISTRICT, PIN - 678102
4 KERALA STATE REMOTE SENSING AND ENVIRONMENT CENTRE,
FIRST FLOOR, VIKAS BHAVAN, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
SENATE CAMPUS, PMG, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED
BY ITS DIRECTOR, PIN - 695033
GP SMT. JESSY S SALIM
SC SRI VISHNU S.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION
ON 06.08.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:58596
WP(C) NO. 6326 OF 2025
3
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 6th day of August, 2025
The petitioners are the owners in possession of
0.1080 hectares and 0.0930 hectares of land comprised
in Survey Nos.3/4 and 3/4-1, respectively, in Block No.
50 of Thathamangalam Village, Chittur Taluk, covered
under Exts.P1 and P2 possession certificates. The
properties are converted land and are unsuitable for
paddy cultivation. Nevertheless, the respondents have
erroneously classified the properties as 'paddy land'
and included it in the data bank maintained under the
Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act,
2008, and the Rules framed thereunder ('Act' and
'Rules', for brevity). To exclude the properties from the
data bank, the petitioners had submitted Form 5
applications, under Rule 4(4d) of the Rules. However,
by Exts.P3 and P4 orders, the authorised officer has
summarily rejected the applications without either
2025:KER:58596
WP(C) NO. 6326 OF 2025
conducting a personal inspection of the land or calling
for the satellite pictures as mandated under Rule 4(4f)
of the Rules. Furthermore, the order is devoid of any
independent finding regarding the nature and
character of the land as it existed on 12.08.2008 - the
date the Act came into force. The impugned orders,
therefore, are arbitrary and unsustainable in law and
liable to be quashed.
2. I have heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioners and the learned Government Pleader.
3. The petitioners' principal contention is that the
applied properties are not cultivable paddy field but are
converted plot. Nonetheless, the properties have been
incorrectly included in the data bank. Despite filing the
Form 5 applications, the authorised officer has rejected
the same without proper consideration or application of
mind.
4. It is now well-settled by a catena of judgments of
2025:KER:58596
WP(C) NO. 6326 OF 2025
this Court - including the decisions in Muraleedharan
Nair R v. Revenue Divisional Officer [2023 (4) KHC 524],
Sudheesh U v. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Palakkad
[2023 (2) KLT 386], and Joy K.K. v. The Revenue
Divisional Officer/Sub Collector, Ernakulam [2021 (1) KLT
433] - that the authorised officer is obliged to assess the
nature, lie and character of the land and its suitability for
paddy cultivation as on 12.08.2008, which are the
decisive criteria to determine whether the property is to
be excluded from the data bank.
5. A reading of Exts. P3 and P4 orders reveal that
the authorised officer has failed to comply with the
statutory requirements. There is no indication in the
order that the authorised officer has personally inspected
the properties or called for the satellite pictures as
mandated under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules. Instead, the
authorised officer has merely acted upon the reports of
the Agricultural Officer without rendering any
2025:KER:58596
WP(C) NO. 6326 OF 2025
independent finding regarding the nature and character
of the land as on the relevant date. There is also no
finding whether the exclusion of the properties would
prejudicially affect the surrounding paddy fields. In light
of the above findings, I hold that the impugned orders
were passed in contravention of the statutory mandate
and the law laid down by this Court. Thus, the impugned
orders are vitiated due to errors of law and non-
application of mind, and are liable to be quashed.
Consequently, the authorised officer is to be directed to
reconsider the Form 5 applications as per the procedure
prescribed under the law.
In the circumstances mentioned above, I allow the
writ petition in the following manner:
(i) Ext.P3 and P4 orders are quashed.
(ii) The 1st respondent/authorised officer is directed
to reconsider the Form 5 applications, in accordance with
the law, by either conducting a personal inspection of the
2025:KER:58596
WP(C) NO. 6326 OF 2025
properties or calling for the satellite pictures as provided
under Rule 4(4f) of the Rules, at the cost of the
petitioners.
(iii) If satellite pictures are called for, the application
shall be disposed of within three months from the date of
receipt of such pictures. On the other hand, if the
authorised officer opts to inspect the properties
personally, the application shall be disposed of within two
months from the date of production of a copy of this
judgment by the petitioners.
The writ petition is thus ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
C.S.DIAS, JUDGE
rmm/6/8/2025
2025:KER:58596
WP(C) NO. 6326 OF 2025
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 6326/2025
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit-P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 04.05.2024 ISSUED BY THE THIRD
RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE FIRST
PETITIONER.
Exhibit-P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE POSSESSION CERTIFICATE
DATED 04.05.2024 ISSUED BY THE THIRD
RESPONDENT IN THE NAME OF THE SECOND
PETITIONER.
Exhibit-P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 3947/2024
DATED 10.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT RELATING TO THE PLOT OF THE
FIRST PETITIONER.
Exhibit-P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. 3950/2024
DATED 10.02.2025 ISSUED BY THE FIRST
RESPONDENT RELATING TO THE PLOT OF THE
SECOND PETITIONER.
Exhibit-P5 THE PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE PROPERTY.
